Using The Right Version Of The Bible

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Craigbythesea, Feb 5, 2005.

  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Does using the right version of the Bible make you more spiritual than those who don’t?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    That's sort of like asking if one uses the right dictionary will you speak better English than those who don't.

    HankD
     
  3. Amity

    Amity
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    no
     
  4. 2Timothy4:1-5

    2Timothy4:1-5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now wouldn't that all depend on whose definition of "right" is being used? I'm sure a KJVO would think that they're more spiritual than someone who's reading from The Message (but that's just my two cents worth).

    but then again didn't Jesus say something about that, when He spoke of the two who were praying on the rooftop?

    Oh well, to each their own I suppose.
     
  5. WallyGator

    WallyGator
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kinda a loaded question. don't you think? Like, "Do you enjoy beating your wife." What is your purpose for such a question? :confused:
     
  6. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    It never hurts to have an accurate translation. It would hard to be spiritual in the right sense using a NWT.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    no </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Sister Amity -- Preach it! [​IMG]
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his publication THE PERILOUS TIMES, KJV-only pastor Raymond Blanton wrote: "Until you come to realize that we have an absolute authority, perfect and settled in the King James Version, you are not prepared to serve the Lord! It is a basic essential to Christian service" (June, 1995, p. 7).

    KJV-only pastor Rolland Star wrote: "The truth is, users of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc. do not believe God" (FLAMING TORCH, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 17).

    D. A. Waite wrote: "You cannot have the power of God if you read these false versions" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 145). Waite also commented: "It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual's knowledge of the Scriptures" (IBID., p. 144).

    Chick Salliby wrote: "Beyond question, in the King James Version, as in no other translation, can we grow in both the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, p. 96).

    Gail Riplinger claimed that new converts' "spiritual growth is going to be aborted" by the use of new versions (WHICH BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, p. 12).
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    By similar logic, Rolland Star has purple hair.

    Sorry, i was an adult Christian in the late-70s
    (1975-1979). The KJVOs of the day said
    that if one could take the Textus Receptus
    and translate it into 20th Century (1901-2000)
    English, then it would be alright. They lied.
    By 1989 the nKJV = New King James Version,
    was produced by KJVO specifications.
    The KJVOs of the day HATED IT.

    I hardly believe how the KJVOs hated this
    nKJV Bible (KJVOs are by nature the
    bashers of many Bibles). They strained at
    a knat and swollowed a camel.
    They griped about th3e triskelion on the
    title page. Hello - the title page is
    NOT PART OF THE BIBLE, NOT PART OF THE
    TRANSALTION.

    The whole history of the KJVO movement has
    taken place right before my eyes.
    Probably why i'm a modern version (MV)
    user. Besides, i never could figure out
    which of the three different KJVs that
    i have on my computer desk is
    "the Right Version of the Bible".
    Tee hee, maybe the KJV1611 is the right
    version, the KJV1769 is the middle version,
    and the KJV1873 is the left version -
    sure is how i've got them arranged on the
    shelve over the screen.
     
  10. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    With the people Logos quoted it is clear to see where he is coming from. I can't believe anyone would quote Riplinger with a straight face. If these are your authorities you need to spend more time in the Word and less time reading the books of lunatics.

    Bro Tony
     
  11. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    __________________________________________________

    Nope!
    Neither does going to the "right" school. Nor listening to the "right" scholar. Etc...

    I would think the only thing that would amke one more spiritual than the next is if one is saved and the other is not!

    JMHO

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  12. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, unless it's my own home-made translation from the Greek NT or Hebrew/Aramaic OT. :eek:

    Hmmmm..... :confused:

    Aha! The MOBV!

    "My Own Bible Version" (c)2005

    Now, I'm really spiritual! :D
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Logos was quoting those authors to show how silly their reasoning is, and to remind us that KJVO has its share of fanatics. However, the more fanatic they are, the more wrong they are also.

    Logos' other posts show his view of the KJVO myth.

    As for the question...the answer is NO, as there's no one single BV that's 100% right, with all others being wrong.
     
  14. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Consistently Christian people (TR/KJV onlyists) use the KJV because of their Biblical faith.

    &lt;attack deleted&gt; people use modern versions because of their &lt;attack deleted&gt; thinking.

    [ February 08, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  15. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    In his publication THE PERILOUS TIMES, KJV-only pastor Raymond Blanton wrote: "Until you come to realize that we have an absolute authority, perfect and settled in the King James Version, you are not prepared to serve the Lord! It is a basic essential to Christian service" (June, 1995, p. 7).

    KJV-only pastor Rolland Star wrote: "The truth is, users of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc. do not believe God" (FLAMING TORCH, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 17).

    D. A. Waite wrote: "You cannot have the power of God if you read these false versions" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 145). Waite also commented: "It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual's knowledge of the Scriptures" (IBID., p. 144).

    Chick Salliby wrote: "Beyond question, in the King James Version, as in no other translation, can we grow in both the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, p. 96).

    Gail Riplinger claimed that new converts' "spiritual growth is going to be aborted" by the use of new versions (WHICH BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, p. 12).
    </font>[/QUOTE]All this proves is that some people in the Christian world are fools!
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another Gospel!
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    By similar logic, Rolland Star has purple hair.

    Sorry, i was an adult Christian in the late-70s
    (1975-1979). The KJVOs of the day said
    that if one could take the Textus Receptus
    and translate it into 20th Century (1901-2000)
    English, then it would be alright. They lied.
    By 1989 the nKJV = New King James Version,
    was produced by KJVO specifications.
    The KJVOs of the day HATED IT.

    I hardly believe how the KJVOs hated this
    nKJV Bible (KJVOs are by nature the
    bashers of many Bibles). They strained at
    a knat and swollowed a camel.
    They griped about th3e triskelion on the
    title page. Hello - the title page is
    NOT PART OF THE BIBLE, NOT PART OF THE
    TRANSALTION.

    The whole history of the KJVO movement has
    taken place right before my eyes.
    Probably why i'm a modern version (MV)
    user. Besides, i never could figure out
    which of the three different KJVs that
    i have on my computer desk is
    "the Right Version of the Bible".
    Tee hee, maybe the KJV1611 is the right
    version, the KJV1769 is the middle version,
    and the KJV1873 is the left version -
    sure is how i've got them arranged on the
    shelve over the screen.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Not a bad post for a Holman Onlyist. :D [​IMG] [​IMG]

    In all seriousness. I still think that the NKJV will become the next KJV in a generation or so. I would also imagine that history will show that each revision was not accepted immediately by any KJVo's that may have existed in the day. (If they actually did.) At least to those people the KJV was an MV, so probably a lot rejected it.

    We KNOW the Catholic church rejected it in favor of the Vulgate.

    So, spirituality?

    Nah, just make sure the translation is a true and mainstream translation.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    This statement makes
    no sense.

    I have three different paper copies of books
    called King James Version (KJV) on my
    computer desk. Two of those KJVs have
    margin notes noting variations among the
    TR sources used. Sorry, "TR/KJV onlyists"
    is a meaningless phrase. Should one
    talk about "persons who exclusively
    the TRs and KJVs" [​IMG]
     
  19. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    Another Gospel! </font>[/QUOTE]The NWT-- like the KJV-- was produced for the benefit of a particular organization.
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo, That is a ridiculous argument that you have been challenged to substantiate before.

    A) I am a Christian person.

    B) I use the KJV, NKJV, and NASB routinely in study.

    C) As several here can attest, I fully reject naturalism as a premise for arguing origins of nature... and here I will tell you that I reject it for the origin of scripture as well.

    D) You attempt to establish a false dichotomy between being rational and being spiritual/faithful. Scripture says what it says... and it does not say what you said in your post.
     

Share This Page

Loading...